167 replies to this topic

[MrTankFan]

Onyx, on Feb 26 2012 - 11:07, said:

And no, the state of US tanks isn't why the NA server is the least popular and smallest.  The reason why is because of the matchmaker, the single most complained about part of the entire game, and the fact that the NA server is actually the newest of the three and still technically growing.  It's probably not going to grow too much larger, but that's more attributable to the observation that NA in general hates non-mainstream games and generally follows the hype machine at large as opposed to supporting indie or off the beaten path titles, such as World of Tanks.  You can see this behavior in just how unpopular E-sports are in the USA by direct comparison to Europe, if nothing else, even in popular games.

If it's not a big name AAA title, NA generally doesn't care.  That's where the bigger problem is from.

Dang it if I don't agree almost completely with this bit. My biggest issue with WoT right now is that sometimes it just doesn't feel fun regardless of what tank you're in. Getting facerolled by tier 9/10 tanks while you're in a tier 7 just sucks, period. It doesn't relly matter much whether I'm in an IS or a Tiger(H), it just isn't fun to see an E-100 or BatChat roll into view and think, "Well, I'm hosed".

As for tank games being non-mainstream...I would love to see other arcade-ish tank games, and not because I want to see them run WG out of business for perceived wrongdoing. I just want more tank games because they're something I like and the market isn't already full of them. I'd go nuts if namco said they'd be publishing a tank counterpart to Ace Combat, or if a Seek and Destroy sequel/spiritual successor was announced. Unfortunately, tank-specific games tend to be a very niche market. The few that do get made tend to be super hardcore PC only sims, the kind of games I tend not to enjoy very much. Sadly, I think the pitch for the kind of games I want would go something like this:

Developer: So, we were thinking we'd do something a little different this time, maybe move into some less crowded markets-
Publisher: I don't like it already.
Developer: Hear me out. We'll make a game just about tanks. There's already plenty of games just about giant robots, and we're thinking it might work the same way.
Publisher: But it won't get me a money pool like John Riticello and Bobby Kotick. So no, not happening. Now here's a permanent marker. Your next "development" project will be to go into the warehouse where we have a bunch of discs of the latest Call of Duty offering and to replace the CoD logo with the title of "our" game: Call of Honor: Russia Invades America (Again).
Developer: I hate my life.
Publisher: Then my work is done here.

Elsewhere...

Me: Someone? Anyone? I will pay money for tank games. Cold hard cash. Right now.    ...Please?

[SpectreHD]

Onyx, on Feb 26 2012 - 11:07, said:

Yes, because the T29 and T32 being unstoppable god-tanks within their tiers clearly should have been left around.  The few tanks that were nerfed on the US line, the T29, T32, T25 AT, were all overpowered (and it was hit in a general nerf, mind you).  The T29 back when it launched had 176mm effective front hull armor in tier 7 with 8 degrees of normalization.  The T32? 219.3mm.  Totally fair.

The gun had even better accuracy on the T5E1, around .34-.35 (I can't remember) with a 360 alpha gun that completely outclassed both the 88L71 and D-25T in damned near every regard possible, especially the realms of target acquisition.  The T32, to this day, still is the strongest tier 8 heavy statistically, and it's been hit beyond the armor bug fix and the T5E1.  Its acceleration has been destroyed, its terrain passibility touched, its traverse hit, and it still is the best in tier/class for tier 8 by raw statistics alone.

The T25 AT was hit in the general TD rebalance, and had its traverse touched...because it could turn faster than most medium tanks in a neutral steering circle.  That's all they touched.  It was faster than most medium tanks, so they reduced it, just as all TDs are generally now slower than medium tanks.

This isn't a "take take take" relationship.  The devs gave us these tanks, and they very clearly, obviously, and demonstrably gave is too much to begin with.  The only travesty here is that the game released before the devs finished finalizing the balance of the tanks, so people have a pedestal to climb atop and preach about how the tank was launched better and then nerfed.

And no, the state of US tanks isn't why the NA server is the least popular and smallest.  The reason why is because of the matchmaker, the single most complained about part of the entire game, and the fact that the NA server is actually the newest of the three and still technically growing.  It's probably not going to grow too much larger, but that's more attributable to the observation that NA in general hates non-mainstream games and generally follows the hype machine at large as opposed to supporting indie or off the beaten path titles, such as World of Tanks.  You can see this behavior in just how unpopular E-sports are in the USA by direct comparison to Europe, if nothing else, even in popular games.

If it's not a big name AAA title, NA generally doesn't care.  That's where the bigger problem is from.

Now that they have reduced the effective armour and overall effectiveness of the guns, the least the devs could have done was give back some mobility. And I do not understand how the T32 can be the best Tier 8 statistically. I have bought the thing a second time after hearing so much praise and then sold it again after some games. Maybe it is just me but I hate the damn thing. The 105mm is useless and more erratic than the D-25T on the IS accuracy wise. Furthermore, a "mobile" vehicle? Yeah right, it moves no better than the T29. Maybe if it had a high velocity 90mm, I would keep it or maybe if the damn 105mm had 0.35 accuracy and not act like some schizo maniac.

As for the nerfs, nothing could excuse WG for the M36 hull traverse nerf and T30 dispersion nerf. "Support" tank? Such a half arsed excuse when the T34 and T30 guns are no more accurate than Soviet ones. Maybe certain aspects of the US line may have needed some reductions even when it totally screwed the durability of the T34 and T30(armour homogenisation nerf) but as CCC_Dober mentioned, they take, take, take and gave nothing back? Why the hell does the T34 have the same view range as the brawler IS-4 when it is supposed to be a "support" tank and why wasn't it increased? Why was the penetration of the 120mm increased? Why does have the same accuracy as Russian guns?

If this is the state of US vehicles now, I expect the French vehicles to be MASSIVELY nerfed and all the French players in General Discussions and wherever they are trying to defend their overcompensated vehicles to deal with it.

[guywitn0life]

T29 and T32 weren't OP with the armor homogenization they lost.

People complained and complained endlessly about how the T32 was invincible frontally. It was far from invincible frontally. It was basically an American KT. The lower glacis was a serious vulnerability.

Old T32 vs Panther at 100 yards.



That was fine, if you ask me. It could be penetrated frontally, reliably, by the 88 L/71. That means all other guns available to tier 8 vehicles at the time (except maybe T-44 and T23) could easily penetrate a T32 frontally.

[JDCollie]

MrTankFan, on Feb 26 2012 - 17:30, said:

Call of Honor: Russia Invades America (Again)

It's funny because it is true, and I even like CoD. . .

[JDCollie]

SpectreHD, on Feb 26 2012 - 20:34, said:

As for the nerfs, nothing could excuse WG for the M36 hull traverse nerf and T30 dispersion nerf. "Support" tank? Such a half arsed excuse when the T34 and T30 guns are no more accurate than Soviet ones. Maybe certain aspects of the US line may have needed some reductions even when it totally screwed the durability of the T34 and T30(armour homogenisation nerf) but as CCC_Dober mentioned, they take, take, take and gave nothing back? Why the hell does the T34 have the same view range as the brawler IS-4 when it is supposed to be a "support" tank and why wasn't it increased? Why was the penetration of the 120mm increased? Why does have the same accuracy as Russian guns?

The nerfs themselves aren't as inexcusable as their timing; if you are nerfing the T30 so that it will fit in as a tier 9 tank destroyer, wait until you move it to tier 9. Similarly, the lack of intermediate buffs to the T34 is equally mind-boggling.

The M36 however. . . well, we won't go there. Then again, if we think the M36 is bad, wait until we see what they do to the M18 Hellcat. ('cause if it can't run down T-50s, it will have been done a tremendous disservice.)

[SpectreHD]

JDCollie, on Feb 26 2012 - 23:17, said:

The nerfs themselves aren't as inexcusable as their timing; if you are nerfing the T30 so that it will fit in as a tier 9 tank destroyer, wait until you move it to tier 9. Similarly, the lack of intermediate buffs to the T34 is equally mind-boggling.

The M36 however. . . well, we won't go there. Then again, if we think the M36 is bad, wait until we see what they do to the M18 Hellcat. ('cause if it can't run down T-50s, it will have been done a tremendous disservice.)

I firmly believe the nerf to the T30's gun depression(oops, meant dispersion) had nothing to do with it going the TD line. It was nerfed because it had good win ratio for having being used in Clan Wars. As for the intermediate buffs, it is even mind boggling the T30 was nerf in the next patch after they said they had no time for to test a T34 buff.

[MrTankFan]

JDCollie, on Feb 26 2012 - 23:13, said:

It's funny because it is true, and I even like CoD. . .

Oh, I do too. The first Modern Warfare is one of my favorite shooters. Then again, the same thing happened during the last console generation with World War II. It got to the point where killing Nazis was boring because a lot of games just seemed to rely on "they're Nazis" to move the game along.

Oh, right, the thread. I suppose I should post something on topic.

While the oscillating turrets are cool, I once saw a four tracked tank in Hunnicutt's book. I don't have the link to the e-text, otherwise I could tell you the page, but I remember thinking, "DO WANT" when I saw it.

[kampfer91]

*Drooling at the oscillating turret *
Reloading like that is a revolution!  

[BubbaQ]

SpectreHD, on Feb 27 2012 - 05:36, said:

I firmly believe the nerf to the T30's gun depression had nothing to do with it going the TD line. It was nerfed because it had good win ratio for having being used in Clan Wars. As for the intermediate buffs, it is even mind boggling the T30 was nerf in the next patch after they said they had no time for to test a T34 buff.

So basically do you think they will never introduce a second Heavy line (like these tanks proposed) due to the fact it would be nerfed back to the stone age?  I believe these tanks could be balanced by giving them a slower reload time and slightly less accuracy. Thoughts?

[SpectreHD]

Bubba4675, on Feb 28 2012 - 15:05, said:

So basically do you think they will never introduce a second Heavy line (like these tanks proposed) due to the fact it would be nerfed back to the stone age?  I believe these tanks could be balanced by giving them a slower reload time and slightly less accuracy. Thoughts?

A 155mm armed heavy with a drum reload would be overkill unfortunately. Gotta keep the IS-7 top, dude!

[CCC_Dober]

The 155mm variant would make for a formidable T10 TD though. The 120mm variant could qualify as an alternative T10 heavy. I saw a proposed tech tree round here that was pretty specific on these two tanks and very much appreciated IIRC.

[FaustianQ]

CCC_Dober, on Feb 28 2012 - 15:52, said:

The 155mm variant would make for a formidable T10 TD though. The 120mm variant could qualify as an alternative T10 heavy. I saw a proposed tech tree round here that was pretty specific on these two tanks and very much appreciated IIRC.

I'm going to go make a thread for it instead of posting it everywhere.

[BubbaQ]

FaustianQ, on Feb 28 2012 - 15:58, said:

I'm going to go make a thread for it instead of posting it everywhere.

Please do, I'd love to see this proposed tech tree as well!, thx!

[BubbaQ]

"Let’s say someone has a Great Idea™ that they want to fit an autoloader into the T30 Heavy Tank. They kick it up the chain, and the project gets approved. The end goal’s nomenclature is “Tank, Heavy T30E1”, but the Army doesn’t work that way. The Dept of the Army assigned it the project number 545-07-005, probably to track the funds. Somewhere along the line, as a new tank model, it got assigned to the Ordnance Branch. The Ordnance Branch gave it the internal project number TT2-479C.  Why TT2-479C? Because it came after TT2-479B of course!

So even after you find the document stating that TT2-479C is the T30E1, you have to find the document cross-linking with the Dept of the Army project number"





lol, here Chief finds information in the archives about the T30E1 with an AUTOLOADER.   Wargaming, please just go ahead and create the T58 Prototype with autoloader and lets call it good.   Okay, and request the other tanks for the 2nd heavy line. (I know, I'm being greedy)

[SPFalcon]

This is a awesome idea! and I like it!        +1  for you!

But you should and might want to post this in the Suggestions forum!

[Ferrumkit]

I'm all for a second Medium line, Nuts to those heavies, they fall like dominoes to the piranha nature of coordinated mediums  

[Thenoob1234]

Damn. This resembles my post a lot. Seems like we all want American autoloaders.   I sure want to see some of these in-game.

[Thenoob1234]

Where did you get these pictures?!?

[Iron_templar]

I want these in game NOW!

[lostwingman]

Thenoob1234, on Apr 30 2012 - 04:45, said:

Where did you get these pictures?!?

My guess is the internet. Yep, I bet it was the internet. Us internet detectives have this special tool called google. It's really high class stuff though, only for srs bsn.